Apple, IBM and 64-Bit CPU

V

vniow

macrumors G4
Jul 18, 2002
10,266
0
I accidentally my whole location.
Re: A Little Research Goes a Long Way

Originally posted by Anecdoter
First, before anyone gets too excited, has anyone bothered to look at what IBM charges for a RS/6000 based system (PowerPC based)?

Check out this link: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

The price starts out at nearly $9,000 (not including monitor) for a 250 mhz PowerPC 604E processor, 128 mb of RAM, 9.1 GB of hard drive space (SCSI) and a 10/100 ethernet card.
The 450 mhz Power3-II (64-bit, copper, one processor) starts at $13,000 (monitor not included). That includes 512mb of RAM and up to 4mb of L2 cache.

Now, who actually believes this new Power4 chip will be inexpensive enough for even the highend Power Macs? My GUESS (and I make no claim to have any insider information) is that if Apple uses these chips, they will be for a new tier of workstations aimed a video animation/production and priced accordingly. The current G4 Power Mac line will probably be retained to serve as the consumer desktop line and will have incremental updates, possibly even the G5.

For more information on the Power4 chip, here's the IBM link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html#chip
Click to expand...

Of course they're not going to make the Poweranything a desktop chip, it's too goddamn hot, expensive and power sucking. They're going to create a Power4 derivative, what makes you think that they would stick the Power4 in an Apple machine?
 
T

TheCat

macrumors member
Aug 2, 2002
35
0
Originally posted by rugby
I am glad I'm not waiting, and just getting a computer now. By the time I am ready to purchase again (2 years or so) they should have all the bugs ironed out and speed ramped up a bit.
Click to expand...
Good for you!!:D

(though i wish i could afford a new mac every two years, u lucky plucker!):p
Steve
 
T

TheCat

macrumors member
Aug 2, 2002
35
0
Re: Tired of hearing about PC speeds.

Originally posted by chubakka
I don't care how supposedly fast the PC chips are... they have to to run windows.

Seriously... we all just read the article where a 2.4 GHz Profile did NOT smoke an 800 MHz iMac... not even close. The iMac wasn't 50% slower... wasn't 30% or even 20%... it had like 4 more frames per second in Quake!
Click to expand...
Very true! and there's nothing more demanding on the whole of a computers hardware than a game. The mhz war is a joke & also people whinning on about apple "only" releasing 1.25ghz dual systems is also a pita! This is more than enough power for 99.99% of users.

</moan>
Steve
 
T

TheCat

macrumors member
Aug 2, 2002
35
0
Re: Caution

Originally posted by dongmin
I don't know, this article seems to be repackaging a lot of rumors that have been floating around recently, like the MacEdition report where we first saw the mention of the GPUL and ApplePI. Some of it is almost a direct quote of the MacEdition report.

And I'm skeptical of some of the time frame these reports claim. Example:

That's a fairly vague statement. A year at the earliest could mean 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years. It's hard to get excited when things are so shifty. Great, this thing sort of exists, but how long do we have to wait for them? And by "consumer systems" I don't think they mean iMacs; rather, it's consumer as opposed to server/enterprise systems.
Click to expand...
Yes, i heard about that too & it was years(?) ago. They where going to use 603e cpu's iirc
 
I

iwantanewmac

macrumors 6502
Oct 24, 2001
356
0
Originally posted by big
Only something amazing will prompt me to buy, thhis may be it...4 gz? WOW that would flame my current G3 (450 mhz)
Click to expand...

He meant pc's are close to 4 GHZ.
Don't expect to see macs at that speed any time soon. (4 years).
Aplle will continue with the speed upgrades they are doing now.
 
I

iwantanewmac

macrumors 6502
Oct 24, 2001
356
0
Re: Re: Tired of hearing about PC speeds.

Originally posted by TheCat


Very true! and there's nothing more demanding on the whole of a computers hardware than a game. The mhz war is a joke & also people whinning on about apple "only" releasing 1.25ghz dual systems is also a pita! This is more than enough power for 99.99% of users.

</moan>
Steve
Click to expand...
Yeah we all know that not all the people use that "power".
It also has a pricetag of over $3000.......
Wich is way to much.
 
R

robguz

macrumors member
Jan 13, 2002
70
0
Re: Re: Oh Please!

Originally posted by MacBandit



How much of any of what you said can you back up with personal experience. I personally had an 8500/120 that I upgraded the 601 to a 604e at 200Mhz. The difference was a lot more then the 80Mhz difference. In most cases it was 3 times faster but when it came to FPU operations which the 601 did poorly it was more like 10 times faster. In fact my 604e at 200Mhz was in some cases as fast at FPU operations as my friends G3 266/Beige that he had at the time.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense since the 8500 120 was a 604. I had a 7500/601/100, upgraded to 604/165(overclocked 120), a 604e225 which I ditched after a week because it was too small a gain, then a G3 308(overclocked 220), then a G4 375 (overclocked 350). So I have real world experience and am also basing my conclusions on my overview of reviews and benchmarks over the years at sites like macspeedzone, barefeats, and xlr8yourmac. You'be hard pressed to be able to back up your claims of 3-10 greater performance going from a 604/120 to a 604e/225.

For the other person who asked for links regarding the ibook, here they are. Remember I was just talking about those that focus on non-altivec, processor only functions. Other things like scrolling and disk copying have more to do with the ibooks slower hard drive and video card so those don't make a fair comparison. But things like Bryce, in which the ibook wins show the advantages of the newer G3 with the 512kb L2 cache. So the one to focus on at macspeedzone is code analysis. It's a hair behind the Ti800 and beats an emac 700.

http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/comparison/all/master_list_9.html

http://barefeats.com/pb8.html
 
Shrek

Shrek

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2002
1,118
0
Nashville, Tennessee USA
Originally posted by dukestreet

So we're going to see the G5 in January????? This ought to be interesting....
Click to expand...
I told you so. See. I knew something was going to happen. You know it's coming soon, especially when something is way past due such as the G5; it could then make it's debut at anytime. It's takes a lot of patience, dukestreet. Must have patience! :p
 
solvs

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
Originally posted by arn
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Power4+group:alt.internet.talk.haven&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=PM0003A93596C67FB8@minion.nashville.comcast.net&rnum=1

Interesting gossip....

hardly a credible source... but interesting read.

arn
Click to expand...
Read the From: part.

Jøhnny Fävòrítê (it means "Japanese Sandman")
this.is@totally.fake.com

Probably a joke. And I doubt we'll see a G5 or Power4Lite in Jan. 2003, especially since the 1.25s are just now shipping. But I hope I'm wrong. We'll see.
 
dongmin

dongmin

macrumors 68000
Jan 3, 2002
1,708
0
To all you believers out there who're expecting Apple to introduce the G5 this January AND release IBM-based systems later in the year: Get a grip, it ain't gonna happen. And please, don't go crying bloody murder when Apple doesn't fulfill your crazy fantasy.

No way in hell is Apple gonna introduce TWO brand new processors in the same year. Yes, we have both the G3 and G4 right now. And yes, we have both Motorola and IBM making chips for us. But the G3 is how old? The G3 was on the market for two full years before they introduced the Yikes G4s. Apple is not introducing a new processor this Jan. only to have it superceded within the same year.

I'll be happy with ONE of those events happening. My best case scenario: the Motorola G5 in February 2003 and the IBM GPUL in August 2004--two years from now. That gives the systems about 18 months apart.
 
scem0

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Originally posted by dongmin
To all you believers out there who're expecting Apple to introduce the G5 this January AND release IBM-based systems later in the year: Get a grip, it ain't gonna happen. And please, don't go crying bloody murder when Apple doesn't fulfill your crazy fantasy.

No way in hell is Apple gonna introduce TWO brand new processors in the same year.
Click to expand...
THey could release the GPUL powermac, and call it a g5, even if it isnt. They just need a computer, to fill the gap between the current pMacs and the GPUL pMacs.

keyword 'could'.
 
A

Anecdoter

macrumors newbie
Sep 17, 2002
19
0
IBM's Pricing

edvniow:
Of course they're not putting a Power4 in the new Macs (the Power4 itself is found in $100,000 systems because it comes with 100mb of cache memory. According to the e-week article, the GigaProcessor Ultra-light systems running Linux are destined to replace IBM's AIX systems - which are mainly the RS/6000 computers I linked to.
Therefore, one can expect IBM to keep it's pricing structure on these systems similar. Also, you can expect IBM to charge Apple quite a bit for each of these chips. Don't forget that the IBM units with the GPUL will be competing with the Apple GPUL systems in the workstation markets.
The bottom line is that the GPUL systems are either going cost significantly more than the current Power Macs or Apple will get a chip so watered down that it will be nothing more than a G4 running a 2ghz.
 
D

daijones

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2002
36
0
Re: A Little Research Goes a Long Way

Originally posted by Anecdoter
First, before anyone gets too excited, has anyone bothered to look at what IBM charges for a RS/6000 based system (PowerPC based)?

Check out this link: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

The price starts out at nearly $9,000 (not including monitor) for a 250 mhz PowerPC 604E processor, 128 mb of RAM, 9.1 GB of hard drive space (SCSI) and a 10/100 ethernet card.
The 450 mhz Power3-II (64-bit, copper, one processor) starts at $13,000 (monitor not included). That includes 512mb of RAM and up to 4mb of L2 cache.

Now, who actually believes this new Power4 chip will be inexpensive enough for even the highend Power Macs? My GUESS (and I make no claim to have any insider information) is that if Apple uses these chips, they will be for a new tier of workstations aimed a video animation/production and priced accordingly. The current G4 Power Mac line will probably be retained to serve as the consumer desktop line and will have incremental updates, possibly even the G5.

For more information on the Power4 chip, here's the IBM link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html#chip
Click to expand...
What this really shows is how much IBM marks prices up beyond the cost of the processor. How much would a 250 MHz 604E chip cost? A pittance I would bet. $9000 for a machine built around a cheap, ol processor is milking it a bit. Taking that as an example, price wise the Power4 probably would be viable. It's not physically viable of course, which is why the chip we're hoping for is a Power4 derivative, not a Power4 itself.

Talking about mis-conceptions, the posts about Apple having 11% vs 3.4% market share are confusing two senses of market share. The calculation that 11% of all computers are Macs is based on all computers currently in use, no matter how old. I suspect this is rather high, but will go with it. The 3.4% is of course the proportion of computers sold in the last (for example) 3 months that are Macs. Which figure counts depends on what you want to establish, and both figures are meaningful: no point dissing somebody for using one or the other. The discrepancy arises because of i) falling "last 3 months" market share over time; and ii) the fact that Macs last longer than PCs, so people aren't buying replacement macs as fast as they're buying replacement PCs. The fact that you can run MacOS X on a four year old machine shows why Apple's market share is low - what chance running WinXP on a machine 18 months old, let alone 48?! Of course, Apple's refusal to design in obsolence within 18 months is one of the reasons why we love them so.
 
A

Akira

macrumors member
Sep 18, 2002
84
0
The Netherlands
new Powermacs in 2003?

I guess that Apple will come up with a new line of Powermacs between June and August 2003.
January is highly unlikely I think.
But don't forget, they don't only have to be really fast (not only the CPU, but also the FSB), but also a whole lot cheaper. It'll have to be the perfect machine to use Maya, FCP and Photoshop on.

I'm planning to buy a new computer around July-August 2003 (I want a new computer for my Uni-work. I'm probably going to study Architecture, that means I have to work a lot with Maya and CAD-apps.) If Apple hasn't introduced new Powermacs after August, it's not unlikely I'll commit a sin and buy a nice Dell system with Pentium 4 with a PSB @ 533 Mhz and 1 Gb of DDR RAM and save a whole lot of money as well. A what the heck, I'll probably go to hell anyway ;)

Steve can't stand the fact that Pixar isn't using Macs, so it isn't that unlikely the upcoming Powermacs will be kicking *ss when it comes to rendering.


Or maybe there just trying to make GPUL Xserves ;)
 
Rocketman

Rocketman

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2001
6,176
1,167
Claremont, The intellectual capitol of the world.
Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm sure glad I just bought my new Dual Ghz/DDR I'll have at least 2 years to enjoy this before they come out with the new chip by which time maybe I'll be ready to buy a new computer. You can wait and wait and wait and wait....... Or you can enjoy and enjoy and enjoy and enjoy......
Click to expand...
You seem to be a practical optimist. Your post should be on the Apple home page.

Rocketman

 
D

DharvaBinky

macrumors member
Jul 18, 2002
89
0
Lafayette, LA
Re: Google fishing trip photos and ...

Originally posted by 3G4N
a little rootin around found some of the following...

Does that **high-performance microprocessors** mean what
I think it means? I'm not thinking faster cell phones.
Click to expand...


Motorola is using "High Performance PPCs" in switches and other embeded applications... not just cel phones. The 85xx series is already seeing use in Cisco Kit, I believe...

In that same conversation he talked of their last chip for
a while. He called it the "Apollo7" and said it was just
taped out. Now I doubt this is the "fabled" MotoG5, and is rather
either the currently shipping 1.25's, or the next round of
7470's to hold us over til we can get our hands on the
wipe-drool-from-face IBM PPC-64's.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine that the "apollo7" is the current round of G4s. If you examine the specs of the 1.25 chip itself, it's a 25% overclocked 7455. Moto doesn't make a G4 with an FSB of 166MHz and Moto doesn't make a G4 at 1.25GHz... the G4 (7455) is rated for 1GHz and 133Mhz FSB... now... click both of those numbers up by 25% and voila! 1.25GHz and 166MHz. I imagine that's why the boat anchor heat sink and fans are there. the G4 even runs passively cooled in the *previous* generation of Pro Towers... so why does this new generation of 1GHz require fans? Overclocked...

:)

DharvaBinky - Hated by so many on RtCW... ;)
 
T

Telomar

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2002
260
36
Re: Re: Google fishing trip photos and ...

Originally posted by DharvaBinky
If you examine the specs of the 1.25 chip itself, it's a 25% overclocked 7455. Moto doesn't make a G4 with an FSB of 166MHz and Moto doesn't make a G4 at 1.25GHz... the G4 (7455) is rated for 1GHz and 133Mhz FSB... now... click both of those numbers up by 25% and voila! 1.25GHz and 166MHz.
Click to expand...
That's absolute nonsense. The 1.25 GHz chips are fabbed and speced by Motorola to run at 1.25 GHz with a 166 MHz FSB they just aren't listed on the products page (at least not their main one).

Motorola had already announced this change previouslyand if you look you can see the chips have none of the signs of an overclocked chip. Besides which selling overclocked chips without advertising them as such is illegal.
 
MisterMe

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,650
28
USA
Re: Re: A Little Research Goes a Long Way

Originally posted by daijones

What this really shows is how much IBM marks prices up beyond the cost of the processor. How much would a 250 MHz 604E chip cost? A pittance I would bet. $9000 for a machine built around a cheap, ol processor is milking it a bit. Taking that as an example, price wise the Power4 probably would be viable. It's not physically viable of course, which is why the chip we're hoping for is a Power4 derivative, not a Power4 itself.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The microprocessor is one (or two) component of a personal computer. The fact is that Apple's PPC 604e-based Power Macintosh 9600 had a price nowhere near $9000 despite that fact that IBM uses the same processor in a an engineering workstation at that price. In fact, you could buy two PowerMacs for that price. The Power Mac 9600 was a high-quality personal computer. It was designed, manufactured, and priced accordingly. The IBM RS/6000 is an engineering workstation. It is designed, manufactured, and priced accordingly, having a processor in common with the Apple PowerMac 9600 not withstanding.

Originally posted by daijones

Talking about mis-conceptions, the posts about Apple having 11% vs 3.4% market share are confusing two senses of market share. The calculation that 11% of all computers are Macs is based on all computers currently in use, no matter how old. I suspect this is rather high, but will go with it. The 3.4% is of course the proportion of computers sold in the last (for example) 3 months that are Macs. Which figure counts depends on what you want to establish, and both figures are meaningful: no point dissing somebody for using one or the other. The discrepancy arises because of i) falling "last 3 months" market share over time; and ii) the fact that Macs last longer than PCs, so people aren't buying replacement macs as fast as they're buying replacement PCs. The fact that you can run MacOS X on a four year old machine shows why Apple's market share is low - what chance running WinXP on a machine 18 months old, let alone 48?! Of course, Apple's refusal to design in obsolence within 18 months is one of the reasons why we love them so.
Click to expand...
Quarterly sales are important--no doubt about it. However, it is the actual numbers of machines in use that leverage the market in other areas. It is not because M$ sells so many copies of Microsoft Word that you put your business at a disadvantage by not buying. It is because so many people use Microsoft Word that you put your business at a disadvantage by not using it. In a growing market, users track buyers fairly well so there is little harm caused by confusing the two. However, Microsoft's markets are now saturated. Sales figures give you very little information about the number of actual users.
 
solvs

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
Re: Re: Re: Google fishing trip photos and ...

Originally posted by Telomar
That's absolute nonsense. The 1.25 GHz chips are fabbed and speced by Motorola to run at 1.25 GHz with a 166 MHz FSB they just aren't listed on the products page (at least not their main one).

Motorola had already announced this change previouslyand if you look you can see the chips have none of the signs of an overclocked chip. Besides which selling overclocked chips without advertising them as such is illegal.
Click to expand...
Exactly. A lot of people have been throwing around the term "overclocked" lately without actually knowing what it means. The G4 has long been rated to run on a 166 MHz FSB. And the maps say 1 GHz +. If they said anything else, Apple would be pissed. Motorola could have 2 GHz 7500 ready to go, but they couldn't say anything until Apple says so (as far as the chips Apple uses). Anyone saying that these 1.25 GHz chips are OC'ed obviously don't understand what that means. Motorola clocked them at 1.25, therefore they are 1.25s. Otherwise Apple couldn't release them as 1.25s. End of story.

And just because the DDR is bastardized (which it is) doesn't mean it won't speed up the machine. We've been asking for DDR for awhile, and they give us DDR2700 (333 MHz). As little as it helps, it helps a little. That's something at least. Trust me, if it can speed up a Celeron, it can speed up a G4.

I just wish everything didn't seem like such a stop gap. No wonder everyone is waiting for the "next big thing".
 
D

DharvaBinky

macrumors member
Jul 18, 2002
89
0
Lafayette, LA
Re: A Little Research Goes a Long Way

Originally posted by Anecdoter
First, before anyone gets too excited, has anyone bothered to look at what IBM charges for a RS/6000 based system (PowerPC based)?

Check out this link: http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/

The price starts out at nearly $9,000 (not including monitor) for a 250 mhz PowerPC 604E processor, 128 mb of RAM, 9.1 GB of hard drive space (SCSI) and a 10/100 ethernet card.
The 450 mhz Power3-II (64-bit, copper, one processor) starts at $13,000 (monitor not included). That includes 512mb of RAM and up to 4mb of L2 cache.

Now, who actually believes this new Power4 chip will be inexpensive enough for even the highend Power Macs? My GUESS (and I make no claim to have any insider information) is that if Apple uses these chips, they will be for a new tier of workstations aimed a video animation/production and priced accordingly. The current G4 Power Mac line will probably be retained to serve as the consumer desktop line and will have incremental updates, possibly even the G5.

For more information on the Power4 chip, here's the IBM link:
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html#chip
Click to expand...
Look again and you'll find that all the RS/6000 machines come with AIX, IBM's Proprietary Unix. I *highly* suspect that a good deal of the price there is from AIX and support for it. IBM tends to include "fabulous" software support packages in their systems like this...

Dharvabinky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom